Childfree… The Most Illogical Article I’ve Read Yet

by Britgirl on November 12, 2007

I’ve come across many articles that purport to understand the “childfree movement” what childfree people think, and why they think it. Oddly the writers of these articles are usually childed, pro-parent and quite ignorant and intolerant of any view that doesn’t dovetail with their accepted one – that reproducing is always good, all the time.

Take this post for instance, which I came across in a recent Google Alert:

Childfree – Selfishness Incarnate hd iphone porn or Saavy Living? (Note – I deliberately kept the bad mobile sex chat spelling mistake in the link – there are others dotted liberally in the nfpworks article).

The article is so illogical phone erotica that it actually gave me a bit of a headache reading it. Thankfully, the more than savvy commentators brought some sense of sanity to the article.

It’s hard to believe that someone can really believe the porn apps for iphone stuff the sheer idiocy that nfpworks purports. Even if none of it makes sense. Here are some “highlights”

…”Quite literally, their[the childfree movement] whole mission is mobile sex videos to throw (jettison is probably a better word) the baby out with the bath water!”

What baby?? porn phone How can we throw out a baby when we don’t have them?

“Now doesn’t a sterilised population sound fun? Actually, no. This hurts my heart, soul, mind and body more than I can really say. It’s evil organised and incarnate at worst, and cognitive dissonance at best. I mean really, do these people hate themselves, because it seems to me that unless they were dropped from another free phone porn planet, they themselves were children once, and oops–thank you to the “fertility idolisers” that were their parents!”

Big words. Apparently it hurts her heart and soul et al… because some of us have decided not to have children? ipad porn Why exactly? Has she nothing better to do with her life than to concern herself about things that aren’t even her business? My advice?

She needs to get a life. Your own.

She accuses childfree people of being fatuous, narcissistic and, with a wild leap of imagination – sterile. And to cap it all, she’s sure that overpopulation is a myth mobile porn sites and that de-population (whatever that is) is the thing to worry about. So of course childfree people are doubly to blame because, well, we’re not breeding to keep the numbers up so that the earth doesn’t run out of people to use its ever expanding resources, perhaps.

It doesn’t hurt her head, mobile ebony porn heart or any other part of her anatomy to see the thousands of children who are abandoned, abused or worse – because their parents had no business having children in the first place. Because their parents didn’t think deeply enough about the consequences of having them. Or they bought into the myth of maternalism. (Or because they had no access to birth control?) The thousands of children who are in orphanages, because now they’re here, they aren’t wanted. No, what she thinks is ideal is to withhold contraception from people (a la Catholic church) so that breeding should go on unabated. Anyone not wanting to breed is automatically evil. Well, well.

Given that some of the key reasons people give for having children is that “they want to have a copy of themselves, leave their legacy, have a carer in porn ipad their old age – to name just a few of the myriad other selfish reasons for which many have kids, it seems almost amusing that the fact that having children is one of the most narcissistic actions there is – even if it is dressed up as being selfless – completely escapes nfpworks.

And of all the things mobile porn clips that are truly terrible in the world, rape murder, child abuse, child labour, the holocaust, not to mention religious fanaticism (of which the article reeks), of all these things, it is deciding not to have children and being childfree that she finds evil incarnate.

The comments on the other hand are intelligent, refreshing and thoughtful. So it’s no surprise that npfworks doesn’t, or simply can’t address them, perhaps she’s unable to since her “argument” mobil porn was so flawed to begin with. As Rob says:

“How can you possibly believe android porn that deciding to forgo having children is narcissist? How about having children for no better reason than to further the family name, or as a publicity stunt (as so many celebrities are doing nowadays)? And what does having been a child at one time have to do with your perceived imperative to have children? You’ve trotted out pretty much every tired cliché that parents who somehow feel threatened by someone else’s choice that won’t affect them in the least. Don’t worry your little head: our decision not to have children is not any kind of referendum on your decision to have children.”

And to those who tout having children as the way to suddenly become unselfish and sacrificial – most of us “evil” childfree people mobile phone porn find we can do that quite nicely on our own, we don’t need to create another life to understand responsibility, thanks very much. Neither are women compelled, as Rebecca says in her comment, to be breeding machines.

NFPworks – don’t phone porn speak on behalf of childfree people, a childfree “movement” or a childfree “paradigm”. As your article shows you clearly know nothing about any of them and, worse, you can’t even be bothered to educate yourself.

Technorati Tags: ipadporn ,

{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }

Chris W November 12, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Britgirl, thanks for pointing out this article. I was going to just comment to NFP and say that everyone else said what I would have liked to have said. Also, to add that the article just smacks of “sensationalism” and leave it at that.

However, seeing as NFP is supposedly a Christian minded blog, well I think I’ll take the time to write out a response, from a childfree Christian to a (I assume) childed Christian. I doubt the author will even care or respond, but I feel I owe it to myself and my wife to set them straight on what it means to be REALLY selfish. Not to mention that NFP’s article is NOT what a true Christian would write.

I try not to swear, but the term you use on here sometimes… fuckwitted… only just begins to describe the article. I read some of the other ones, and I could only shake my head in shame.

Reply

brightfeather November 12, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Although I have been endeavoring not to be combative the fuckwit who wrote the post you pointed to got to me. As Chris W has pointed out above no true Christian would write such a toxic and misguided rant.

I left a comment on “its” blog, although I sincerely doubt that anyone who has their head as far up their ass as that blogger obviously does will ever “see the light”.

Reply

Chris W November 12, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Posted! I’m #32. I think I went on a tirade. My head hurt after all that… :(

Reply

Christine November 12, 2007 at 6:24 pm

The site is by a person who works as the Family Planning Coordinator of the Madison Diocese in Wisconsin. It’s a traditional Catholic site. To wit, the blogger is also anti-contraception.

So I guess I’m not surprised by the tenor of her post. The opinions expressed are just what I would’ve imagined given the author.

Reply

Kat November 12, 2007 at 6:35 pm

“Jesus was a bad and selfish man for not having any children. Luckily he didn’t have any kind of legacy to pass on and is now completely forgotten thanks to this omission on his part”.

I’m not religious, but I say AMEN to that. I’ve been giggling over that all afternoon.

And she works for “Family Planning”? What does she plan? Sermons on the mount?

Reply

Christine November 12, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Kat, yeah, — natural family planning.
Online I have learned:

NFP is a way of following God’s plan for achieving and/or avoiding pregnancy. It consists of ways to achieve or to avoid pregnancy using the physical means that God has built into human nature.

NFP consists of two distinct forms:

1. Ecological breastfeeding. This is a form of child care that normally spaces babies about two years apart on the average.

2. Systematic NFP. This is a system that uses a woman’s signs of fertility to determine the fertile and infertile times of her cycle.

* Couples seeking to avoid pregnancy practice chaste abstinence during the fertile time of her cycle.

Reply

Phoena November 13, 2007 at 11:01 am

I wouldn’t take this “article” (which is nothing more than a blog entry) seriously. Consider the source. You can’t expect NFP people to be sane or rational, especially on this topic.

Reply

Kat November 13, 2007 at 11:25 am

1. Ecological breastfeeding. This is a form of child care that normally spaces babies about two years apart on the average.

This is supposed to WORK? Explain that to my friend, who has two children ten months apart. Guess it didn’t work so great for her!! And a lot of other people too, I’d say!!

Reply

NFPworks November 13, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Britgirl, thanks for all the attention.

Per your comment, “So it’s no surprise that npfworks doesn’t, or simply can’t address them, perhaps she’s unable to since her “argument” was so flawed to begin with.”

I’ve been out of town, and probably like you I have a full time job that doesn’t allow me to spend all of my time articulately responding to dozens upon dozens of comments throughout the day.

I’m working on another blog entry to collectively respond to some of the most commented upon aspects of my initial and very contraversial post on “Childfree” proponents.

Thank you for all the attention to my spelling mistakes. It’s endearing. Are you a copy editor, or just angry because I spell fertilization with a z instead of s?

Reply

Emma November 13, 2007 at 3:17 pm

A couple of comments:

My cousin had two kids in one year (kid #1 was a New Year baby and kid #2 was born December 30th of that same year) thanks to the old can’t-get-knocked-up-whilst-breastfeeding MYTH.

As for Natural Family Planning, I believe it’s the same thing as the Fertility Awareness Method, which is one of the several methods of birth control we use. “Several” being the key word. There’s no “chaste abstinence” involved. During periods of high fertility, we just use extra precautionary measures during our eyes-roll-back-in-your-head good sex. ;)

Reply

Chris W November 13, 2007 at 4:09 pm

“Are you a copy editor, or just angry because I spell fertilization with a z instead of s?”

Gee. Can we say “baiting”?

Reply

Chris W November 13, 2007 at 4:16 pm

I tried to add to it, but it said “Load comment failed.”

Just wanted to add that the author of that blog just lost any other respect I had for them with her comment to you.

Reply

Anne-Marie November 13, 2007 at 6:27 pm

I added on eventually, Chris. As Bugs Bunny used to say, what a ma-roon.

Reply

Britgirl November 13, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Chris – Gee, I think we can I think she’s(?) trying to be sarcastic. LOL! Oh and yes, the article was really fuckwitted. I’m so glad I’m not the only one who thought so, because it’s the first word I thought of. I understand she doesn’t like the word either ;) On a more serious note it makes me cringe when so called “Christians” set themselves up to call other people the things nfp does. I wonder they can use the name in the same breath. Good on you for setting the record straight.

Brightfeather – Don’t hold back ;) I know you know these “types” well ;) But I’m going to read your comment. Like you I doubt the blogger will see the light… of all the reasoned comments on her actual blog the only one she could pick to respond to was about… cats. Riiight.

Christine… ya, but consider.. I can live with someone not seeing my point of view, even with setting forth a reasoned argument, although why she’s so scared of childfree folk is beyond me ;) Oops I forgot we’re fatuous and evil incarnate… heh! I don’t even care she’s anti-contraceptive (even if it is misguided). The post was so illogical that I was amazed anyone could respond to it at all.

Kat – I’m still giggling… I fear the irony is lost on nfpworks. It’s a good thing Jesus didn’t have kids (quite clearly having much better things to do) otherwise he’d be held up as an example. Imagine!

“I wouldn’t take this “article” (which is nothing more than a blog entry) seriously. Consider the source. You can’t expect NFP people to be sane or rational, especially on this topic.”

Certainly looks like it. I had no idea. I guess I’m too used to rational, reasonable, sane thinking, Phoena ;)

npfworks – You are not like me. We have nothing in common, so please don’t even go there. Don’t forget to read my disclaimer… carefully. Potshots, even veiled ones will be cheerfully dealt with. But I suspect you’ve far too many of comments to respond to on your own blog than to waste your time here, in a veritable hotbed of “evil”.

Oh, and by the way? The word is spelled controversial. Not contraversial. And it’s Childfree or child-free or even Childfree. Not “Childfree.”

Anne- Marie…. True.

Reply

Britgirl November 13, 2007 at 10:13 pm

Chris W. Brightfeather. Anne-Marie. I read your comments on the blog. Great comments. Bravo!
People, if you haven’t already done so they are well worth a read.

Reply

Christine November 13, 2007 at 11:33 pm

“…I can live with someone not seeing my point of view, even with setting forth a reasoned argument, although why she’s so scared of childfree folk is beyond me ;)” “

Yeah, I’ve though about it and I see your point, Britgirl. I too appreciate a well-reasoned argument but my opinion is that you can’t argue with religious folks who know for certain God’s on their side. It is a non-starter to my mind. So I don’t go there myself…having grown up with religious fundamentalists in my family I tend to not engage them or try to make them see my point of view. Defeatist perhaps but one grows weary.

I don’t deal well with religious folks who think we’re fatuous and evil incarnate, either. But, I imagine like most of us, I am fine with religious folks who are tolerant (nay, accepting) of different points of view.

I’m not religious myself but I have some dear friends who are quite religious (but not traditional or fundamentalist) and also childfree. I’ve never asked but I bet they use contraceptives ;-).

Reply

Hillari November 14, 2007 at 10:13 am

Thanks Britgirl, for bringing yet another person to our attention who has such asinine opinions about the childfree movement. That blogger could not even respond intelligently to the responses to their negative, poorly thought-out article.

The opinions expressed by that blogger are just another example of the rampant ignorance that the childfree is constantly up against.

Reply

Stepher November 14, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Britgirl:

I posted this story in our CF & Loving It group on MySpace. Here’s the website addy:

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entryID=46076811&groupID=101124498&adTopicID=23&Mytoken=F5365B1E-DEB6-430D-BEDCEAD8AD91544C7611635

THANK YOU for writing about this.

S.

Reply

CFSinceSix November 14, 2007 at 9:14 pm

This tripe is par for the course for those who are self righteous in their parenthood, inability to view a totally opposing view point (I’m not saying they have to agree..), and complete misunderstanding of the conscious decision some people make regarding the direction of their lives.

I couldn’t even read that blog entry.

Reply

Angry Grrl November 15, 2007 at 3:19 pm

“Evil incarnate,” huh? What’s the benefits package like with that? ‘Cause if it pays better than my current editorial salary, I’d be willing to sign my childfree, “evil incarnate” self up. ;)

Reply

Britgirl November 15, 2007 at 8:38 pm

Stepher – Thanks for posting in your forum. I checked it out… Great comments I enjoyed them.

CFsince6 – Yep! Tripe indeed.
AngryGirrl – LOL

Reply

Tanya November 16, 2007 at 5:03 am

Unbelievable. I’m late to the party, as usual and really have nothing else to add, but HOLY HELL WTF?

Reply

Britgirl November 16, 2007 at 10:14 pm

NFPworks is supposed to be working on the “Mother of all rebuttals” (sorry but that was so apt ;).

But I have to say the comments on that post are great. Never mind the tripe, just read the comments. I know saying that is sending more readers over there (and I bet nfpw has never had so many commentators!) but it is gratifyin and heartening to read such well thought-out, amusing and TRUE comments on that post – some of which are from you of course. Props!

Reply

Chris W November 20, 2007 at 9:11 pm

Grrrr….

Just checked up on the blog post, and it seems that commenting is now closed off. Really irritating, since I really wanted to respond to another Christian, Tamra, whom had written these views:

… It meant sharing that love and letting it go out from me in a concrete fashion, ergo, adoption. Any other choice would have been selfish and ultimately led to emptiness. That is what love is, at its essence. Otherwise, we are just lusting after one thing or another, and that is just plain sad.

Isn’t it just possible that’s what NPF meant when she said it hurt her? Isn’t it just possible that she empathized a terrible tragedy playing out in front of her? Isn’t there even a glimmer of a chance that she was concerned about you, rather than judging you?

Or are you really that hard of heart that you can’t entertain the possibility that a Christian might not care so much about your stance as your being?

To err is human, to forgive, divine…

… For Christians, we understand the Trinity as love, meaning that the love between God the Father and God the Son is so intense that it produces the Holy Spirit. We also believe that the true love between a man and a woman parallels and expresses that love in it’s entirety, as best it can in an earthly fashion. That means that love that is not fruitful is not love at all, but lust, and for us, that is a sin…

… So, why is our position so poisonous to the Childfree folks? Is it because it might make some sense, deep down? Or is it because we believe it so strongly that it might challenge ‘em? Or is it simply that the Childfree folks are easily provoked? I really don’t know, but apparently we are not allowed to have our point of view without being attacked. So be it. Jesus said this would happen, and now it has. Could He have been right about some other things, too? Food for thought, if you are so inclined.

As a fellow Christian, this mindset and one-sided take on christian philosophy got me very angry. I don’t think she had read my prior comment on the post. Maybe if she did, her thoughts might have done a double-take.

Reply

Britgirl November 22, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Hey Chris – she’s a fundie. It doesn’t matter what anyone says, everything that does not agree with their world view that “marriage is for children and children only ” is simply twisted to mean an attack on them. It’s a pity they tarnish all Christians with their narrow intolerant brush strokes, but I am not at all surprised.

It’s frankly laughable that she thinks that because they believe what they do “so strongly” that perhaps “we feel challenged”. I think it’s the other way around. And perhaps she needs to read the original post as well as yours…. as it was nfpworks who attacked the childfree.. by calling the very act of not wanting or having children “evil incarnate.” I guess that’s par for the course for them.

Talk about closed minds. And they have the gall to preach about love and Jesus and the Trinity…

And as for this…

“Isn’t there even a glimmer of a chance that she was concerned about you, rather than judging you?”.

The answer is No.

Reply

Sam B. October 11, 2011 at 1:03 am

Well, I’m sorry that she feels this way for people who simply make their own choices in their own lives. I, for one do not want any children and can’t see why people WITH children feel so compelled to change our minds. Being able to make our own choices is one of our fundamental rights as American citizens. And after all, you don’t see child-free people talking to people with children constantly asking them things like this: “So why did you want to have kids?” Now, wouldn’t they just be horribly offended if that were to happen?

Oh and withholding contraception from people? Congratulations, now every call girl, every teen-aged girl who has promiscuous sex and every woman who chooses that as a means of making a living will be having kids they can’t keep, don’t want or end up hating. Also, diseases could possibly be spread to those children and other children. And I am really honestly not being disrespectful toward those women. I know they may not have another choice and that they are using protection now. I’m just saying that withholding birth control or condoms is a horrible idea.

Also I’d like to point out that no one in this world is supposed to act, think or feel exactly like another person. We are all unique beings. We all look different, have different cultures and religions, think differently and have differing personalities. That’s what makes living here so splendid: We can all have our own theories about life, formulate out own ideas, hold our own ideals and make our own choices. At least, that’s how it works when you live in a place where you are allowed free will.

Last time I checked, the constitution gives me the right to do whatever I want with my own body, and that includes not giving birth to children. It also gives my husband the right to use protection.

I really don’t mean to preach. I guess when you’re passionate about something and good at expressing yourself in words, it just flows forth when it needs to be. Anyway, there’s what I think. Thanks for reading.

Reply

Scott October 11, 2011 at 3:29 pm

So…. a Catholic-based organization is saying that being childfree is selfish and un-Godly?

Umm….what about priests and nuns and bishops and archbishops and cardinals and popes? Mother Teresa? By the NFP logic, these people are selfish ungodly abominations, the whole lot of them. (At least, the ones who don’t actually have children….)

What, is this blogger some kind of crypto-Protestant heretic or something?

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: